Hacktivists hijack BNP Twitter account, crayon over leader Griffin's too Hacktivists from Anonymous took over the Twitter feeds of the extreme British National Party and its controversial chairman Nick Griffin over the weekend. The hack against @NickGriffinMEP's profile, which boasts 29,000 followers, was apparently mere mischief rather than a desire to make a point against a politician notorious …
I think it is wrong to hack pages (freedom of speech and all that), and linking the LGBT community to this honourable gentleman (phrase used without prejudice) might seriously offend members of said LGBT community.
Besides, the honourable gentleman (phrase used without prejudice) is much better at making a fool of himself than any parody could ever manage.
I thought UKIP was just a re-brand...
Not as overtly racist, but containing a lot of racist members and appealing to a lot of the same people. However, there's enough patina of respectability on them that they drag in a lot of people who would never join / support the BNP. BNP is very Working Class focused. UKIP play to that but also to a much more Middle Class demographic as well. Read the Daily Mail? You're in UKIP's target market.
Sound tactics as well. Working Class, at least "proper" old-fashioned we-love-Scargill Working Class has heavily been sidelined by Lower Middle Class these days. And that's UKIPs ideal market.
Problem with UKIP is not the prevalence of racism and sexism in the party. (Well it is, but it's not the most dangerous part). The problem with UKIP is that they are extremely populist and simplistic. They talk in positive generalities about the importance of national pride, that you don't want people coming here and just living off everyone else. Well that all makes sense. But the reality is that we do around £17bn of trade with the EU every month and Farage wants to walk away from that and be a lapdog to the USA as far as I can work out. The reality is that migration is a net benefit to the UK and also has kept down inflation.
Britain can compete. We have a lot of strengths. We shouldn't turn our tails and run away from the EU thinking it'll eat us up. You don't see the Germans backing out because they're afraid other people will take their jobs.
I've gone on a rant, haven't I? Sorry - only meant to make a joke but it's kind of true. UKIP isn't quite a re-brand of the BNP, but it's kind of BNP for the middle classes. And it's definitely drawn a lot of supporters from the BNP, there's no doubt about that.
Pretty much agree with everything you said there. Don't forget to remind people that UKIP, along with their sexist and racist attitudes, also have some pretty disgusting attitudes towards disabled people, such as mandating abortion of downs syndrome foetuses.
Everyone should REALLY google this for themselves before even thinking of voting for UKIP, there is no excuse for ignorance. But then again, UKIP is actively seeking out ignorant people to vote for them, which is illustrated by the lies and deception that can easily be debunked, such as the one about us being better off out of the EU and that we are subject to laws from Europe which we have no say over. The only instance of this I can think of being the European Convention on Human Rights (to which we are a signatory, so we did have a say over it, or at least our politicians did), which I'm sure our incumbent government would be keen to get rid of given half a chance, as it guarantees pesky things like privacy, freedom of religion, the right to food, etc.
which is illustrated by the lies and deception that can easily be debunked, such as the one about us being better off out of the EU and that we are subject to laws from Europe which we have no say over.
Really? Not even a day has passed since this was reported: No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report, yet you can easily debunk it? Go on then.
Oh and I'm not even a UKIP voter, but I do find the smearing of people (like you've all tried to do here with UKIP = BNP light) who believe things you dislike, to be nasty.
I seriously object to people who feel free to go around blatently lying, as you did with this.
such as mandating abortion of downs syndrome foetuses.
Everyone should REALLY google this for themselves before even thinking of voting for UKIP, there is no excuse for ignorance.
So I took your advice and guess what... it's a lie.
> Oh and I'm not even a UKIP voter, but I do find the smearing of people (like you've all tried to do here with UKIP = BNP light) who believe things you dislike, to be nasty.
Strongly agreed here. It's human nature to belittle other groups, and lying to do so suddenly becomes very acceptable, but it's a bad mistake. If you work to underestimate and understate an enemy, you actively give them an advantage.
Further, this polarises people's positions which effectively makes parties draw apart, which reduces any common ground which can be used to defuse situations (or even politely agree to disagree), and eventually makes violence more acceptable to both.
It's a shame really, we don't actually have any real options for a sane party to choose from....
Would you really want Ed Milliband as PM? Nick Clegg? or shall we stick with 'Dave'?
Although I've been a Tory supporter my whole life, I think I will be voting Labour just to try and avoid Theresa May being Home Secretary any longer....
>>"Would you really want Ed Milliband as PM? Nick Clegg? or shall we stick with 'Dave'?"
Saw Milliband on Andrew Marr with Farage this morning. Farage scored point after point off him. Milliband might be bright, but he completely failed to impress me in any way on that. I think he would be awful as Prime Minister. I despise New Labour.
>>Although I've been a Tory supporter my whole life, I think I will be voting Labour just to try and avoid Theresa May being Home Secretary any longer
Entirely understandable but frying pans and fire come to mind. Tories may be evil, but they're competent and evil. At least economically.
"Tories may be evil, but they're competent and evil. At least economically."
There's very little evidence that _any_ UK party has been economically competent in the last couple of hundred years. The economy mainly staggers on despite them, rather than because of them.
>>"Oh and I'm not even a UKIP voter, but I do find the smearing of people (like you've all tried to do here with UKIP = BNP light) who believe things you dislike, to be nasty."
Actually, I agree with this and I hope I avoided that in my post. One thing I noticed when talking with some people who were campaigning against UKIP is that they were very heavy on the polemnic about racism, misogyny, etc. I actually think it is more effective in many ways to focus on more material issues, such as the benefits of the Human Rights laws and other EU legislation that benefits us, the amount that trade would be harmed if we left, the boost we get from migrants.
The thing is though, whilst I don't say things like "UKIP want to mandate abortion of Downes syndrome foetuses", I did write "prevalence of racism and sexism" in the party. And I did write that UKIP have drawn a lot of support away from the BNP because they actually have. Also, a recent study showed that those of the Tory supports who have left for UKIP have been more the socially conservative ones, rather than the economically conservative ones.
I've actually been along to a UKIP meeting - I like to verify before I criticise, and honestly, the mix of people there had a very high proportion of bigots. Certainly there were people who were not, but UKIP has been drawing them like flies and whilst it's true they've been throwing out those that were caught in something particularly repugnant by the press (such as the 'Down's Syndrome' candidate), they've had to do this with a far higher frequency than any other mainstream party. IME, UKIP does have a very high prevalence of sexism, racism and anti-gay prejudice. I watched Farage on Andrew Marr this morning and just watch his answer when he's asked if he considers homosexuality to be wrong. He evaded the question like a you wouldn't believe.
Whilst I'm very careful to avoid smearing and inaccuracy (and I hope my post did not do so), I think my characterisation of the party supporters as the Daily Mail readership is a fairly good characterisation. It matches my direct contact. It's not universal, but I did write "prevalence" and it is concerning that a party so riddled with sexism and anti-gay prejudice has come so far.
I modded you up, btw, because I think it's right to call out inaccuracies and harmful to debate. I agree with you very much on that. However, I do not agree with you. For example:
>>"Really? Not even a day has passed since this was reported: No UK trade benefit from EU membership - Civitas report, yet you can easily debunk it? Go on then."
For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert and you can always find someone to support a position. If you haven't already done so, I suggest you read the report that you linked to. The author (a sociologist, btw, not an economist) has a very clear agenda against the EU. Anyone who doubts that I encourage them to read the report that you yourself linked to as support, because it's very apparent. This report would not survive peer review. It contains several sleight of hand tricks from even a cursory reading. It stakes major parts of its position on things like: "the proportion of exports to EU countries has not risen since the start of the EU". Well the real question is whether exports would have fallen markedly if Britain had stayed out whilst the rest of Europe formed a financial club with far fewer trade barriers. Of course they would. In fact, exports to the EU have risen massively in both volume and value since then, but the report tries to make membership sound like a bad thing because the "proportion" hasn't risen.
In fact, it goes on to try and imply that membership is bad because exports to non-EU countries have risen faster than those to EU countries since the 1960's. Again, seriously? The author thought that the rapid increase in Wealth and purchasing power from countries like India, China and others wouldn't cause exports from existing Developed countries to rise rapidly? Did the author account for this shifting economic situation in their rudimentary plonking of one figure next to another? No, of course they didn't. The depth of analysis in this report is laughable. There's as much rhetoric in the report as there are facts (more, actually).
It's only on the BBC site because it's controversial and topical. Most any economist would agree that the UK net benefits financially from being a member of the EU. Absurd to think that the £17bn trade we do with Europe every month wouldn't suffer badly if we pulled out and gave up all the free trade benefits.
Seriously, you posted that report because you thought it bolsters your case. I say if any neutral person reads the first few pages and realizes what a piece of polemnic it is, then they'll find it bolsters mine.
Oh, another thing from the report: It has a great big table showing how exports to the EU have risen from other countries faster than from Britain and holds this up as showing how we haven't benefited from EU membership.
I honestly would be astonished if exports from China hadn't risen faster than Britain's. I think I'd rather read a report by an actual economist than a sociologist with an agenda.
I think my characterisation of the party supporters as the Daily Mail readership is a fairly good characterisation.
I have no idea if you relate that characterisation directly to the numbers of them who you claim are 'bigots', but if you do you have a bigger problem than your opinion of them as bigots.
Numbers, there are a hell of a lot of 'Daily Wail' readers, and if they hold the majority in positions which fall in line with UKIP, then UKIP could become a 'proper' political force in Britain (for as long as we're still Britain anyway).
Maybe not characterising them in/with pejorative terms, will get you (and others) more air time with them to put the case for your ideas/thoughts/beliefs... you never know (playing the numbers game) you're bound to find some who think your ideas/thoughts/beliefs have some merit and should be considered by their party.
Absurd to think that the £17bn trade we do with Europe every month wouldn't suffer badly if we pulled out and gave up all the free trade benefits.
That's the standard response given by all of those who believe we should be in the EU, and it's not good enough. That's what they're all missing, that the argument they make isn't a good enough answer. As that report points out the Swiss (as non-EU members) have negotiated and signed more Free Trade Agreements than Britain has (as a member of the EU).
Nigel will at some point catch onto that, and use those numbers to point out that (inline with his pitch to our Commonwealth partners). Britain could have negotiated the same kind of deals the Swiss has and also created a Commonwealth Nations FTA... in fact there's a nice video of him using the Commonwealth FTA line to Canadians on YouTube (it's a few years old now, but he's been pitching that line for a while now). Canada being a major player to get in to any such FTA because of their existing membership of NAFTA.
I personally believe we should be in the EU... some kind of EU anyway... those who think we should be in it as it is, are going to need to up their game. Nigels arguments have become considered and thought through, he has answers. Reports like that arm him with more answers and... at least some evidence.
@obnoxiousGit
Firstly, might I suggest that calling me a 'lefty' in what is clearly meant to be a derogatory slur in the style of Fox News is a rather clumsy attempt at an ad hominem attack.
Let me take each of your points in turn.
1) The Civitas report you quote is, as others have pointed out, clearly biased and shows only that we have not lost trade from being in the EU. I would suggest that we would lose a lot of trade from not being a member, due to import duties amongst several other factors. Picking the first google result that agrees with your opinion is not research, merely an example of confirmation bias. You should probably google that too.
2) It was not my intention to smear UKIP by comparing the to the BNP, this (in a separate post) was meant as a joke. They do, however, seem to employ some of the same rhetoric as the BNP and EDL, and so, to my mind, they belong to the same 'group' of organisations. This is not a smearing, so much as an opinion based on observation.
3) The bit about mandating abortion of Downs Syndrome babies was in no way a 'blatant lie'. This was a published policy of one UKIP candidate. The fact that this candidate has been suspended does not change that fact that this is what he proposed, and he was only 'stood down' after negative press about this policy. There is a clear and consistent pattern of UKIP members making sexist, racist, and otherwise discriminatory statements, and having to rescind those statements, or resign as a result. This pattern is more common than in other parties, who themselves, are not exactly shining examples of paragons of virtue. Whilst this does not provide direct evidence that all members of UKIP are bigots, statistically it is quite damning.
I will add to this, that to me their policies seem shallow, ill thought out and not rationally based on evidence. What saddens me is the fact that many of the policies of the main parties are likewise lacking in intellectual rigour, which is arguably one of the factors which has led to the rise of UKIP in the first place.
@ Loyal Commenter
Firstly, might I suggest that calling me a 'lefty' in what is clearly meant to be a derogatory slur in the style of Fox News is a rather clumsy attempt at an ad hominem attack.
I'm sorry you felt my 'Title' was an attack upon you, it wasn't intended to be taken personally like that. It comes from my own observations that the kind of 'name calling' you decided to undertake generally comes from the political left.
>>"I'm sorry you felt my 'Title' was an attack upon you, it wasn't intended to be taken personally like that. It comes from my own observations that the kind of 'name calling' you decided to undertake generally comes from the political left."
I'm not posting this just to be contrary but I'm actually fairly Right-Wing, and I made the original joke that kicked this off. I've gone into quite some detail about my objections to UKIP and I don't think of my reasons can be characterised as Left Wing.
If in any doubt, you can check my posting history. Obviously not every post I make is "reduce government! smash trade barriers! more workfare!" But if you look back through my history you'll see I'm quite clearly not Left Wing. Other than being in favour of the NHS and semi-supportive about government intervention in public transport infrastructure, I really can't think of any position I do hold that is squarely Left.
>>"I'm actually just left of centre on the political compass... maybe that's why I don't see 'left wing' as a radical insult."
I didn't say it was an insult, I said it was innaccurate. My criticism isn't because of some political allegiance, it's because of sound economic reasoning and a dislike of sexism, racism and homophobia. Right-wing are just as entitled to feel this way as the Left. (More so with the "sound economic reasoning, imo. ;) )
>>I didn't say it was an insult
>>"I never said you did, but others took it that way."
Why did you cut off the second half of my sentence that you quoted?
I said your view was inaccurate and showed why. You replied saying you didn't mean it as an insult. I replied saying that I didn't say it was insulting, I said it was inaccurate. You cut off the part about it being inaccurate and said that you never said that I said it was an insult.
Mine was the post you replied to and changed the title to "I see the lefties are out in force". Clearly you were characterising me as a Lefty and it's easy to show you're wrong. Just accept that.
This and a bunch of other policies are quite disturbing, but I suspect a large number of Kipper votes will be "strategic" ones in marginal seats or protest votes in safe ones.
If I was Labour, I'd be doing all I can to get UKIP support up, as it splits support for their opposition.
Some good points, but the "trade" argument seems weak on two fronts. Firstly, who is to say that leaving the EU would affect our trade with the EU? Other countries (Norway, for example) manage quite well. Secondly, and more importantly, this argument would suggest that in the event of a tradeoff between international commerce and representative democracy, it is democracy which must be sacrificed. The only elected body in the EU is the European Parliament, but their job is to provide a fig leaf of democracy, while rubber stamping the plans of the unelected Commission.
If you look back through the history of the EU, democracy, and therefore freedom, is sadly lacking. Case in point is the "second" Lisbon treaty referendum - held as the people did not vote the "right" way the first time. Or you could look at the spectacle of the men from the European Central Bank parachuted into the highest offices of State in Ireland or Italy following their bailouts.
The stated agenda of the EU is an "ever closer union". Great for roaming phone charges, not so good for democracy.
>>"Some good points, but the "trade" argument seems weak on two fronts. Firstly, who is to say that leaving the EU would affect our trade with the EU?"
Well at a stroke you reintroduce tariffs on all goods and give up free of capital and even employees as well. These details are a short list, but the items on it are big things. (Don't forget that we import a large amount of our electricity from France so expect power costs to rise.)
And then in addition to the above items, the EU has 31 trade agreements with non-EU countries that we are part of by virtue of our membership in the EU. A full analysis of the impact of losing both sets of trade agreements is quite frankly beyond me (and would be absurd to think a proper analysis could ever be within the scope of a random forum post), but it seems highly unlikely there wouldn't be a very large negative impact.
Furthermore, we move from being a part of the EU to being in competition with the EU. Britain is not a large power in its own right and our manufacturing sector is weak after long periods of weak investment, off-shoring and concentration on financial and service industries (the former is justifiable, the latter not).
The thought of what it would be like to have the USA to the West of us, the giant EU trading block to the East of us, the Common Economic Space beyond that (Russia and Friends), SAFTA (South Asian Free Trade Association), and then the single-nation giants of China and India... all cooperating and competing. The gangs have formed, everyone's picked teams. And UKIP want to be a little island without agreements and pacts with others. Powerful nations and groups of nations exploit weaker or isolated nations. This history shows us. The delusion that we're somehow better off going it alone is founded on a wildly distorted view of Britain's political and economic clout.
Earth is a prison and UKIP want to be the inmate who doesn't have any block of friends looking out for him.
>>"Secondly, and more importantly, this argument would suggest that in the event of a tradeoff between international commerce and representative democracy, it is democracy which must be sacrificed."
No, that is not what I'm advocating. I fully agree with you that the second referendum in Ireland was wrong and if the British people by a decent majority want to pull out, then pull out we must. I am not arguing that people must be forced to have X. I am arguing that X is a good thing for us to choose. That said, we did choose to join the EU and we cannot keep popping in and out everytime people get worked up. So whilst I'm not opposed to a referendum, I'm sure you'll agree we can't keep having them every few governments.
Just on a side-note, there's a significant age gap in support for EU membership with younger people (18-24) far more in favour of membership than people nearer retirement age. I'm not saying older people's opinions are less valid, I'm just noting that this is an important decision about the future of Britain and those who are our future, want to stay in.
>>"The only elected body in the EU is the European Parliament, but their job is to provide a fig leaf of democracy, while rubber stamping the plans of the unelected Commission."
Well I was part of the campaign that got the parliament to send back (twice) the Software Patent reforms that the Commission had approved, so not always a rubber stamp. ;) And in fact that's changing. Parliament is getting more spine. But I think we're getting off topic. I was making the case that what UKIP wants would be financially bad for Britain. I think I've both made that case and put up good counters to the arguments against.
If you expect to outmanoeuvre me with an argument that "Democracy is good" and see me trapped into defending all aspects of the EU, you're going to meet air. All I'm interested in is if Britain is better off in the EU and I believe it is.
"I thought UKIP was just a re-brand..."
Not quite -- the real nutters stay with BNP, the foot soldiers come from EDL and disaffected Tories.
The top nutters in UKIP seem to be ex-Tories that for some reason Group Captain Farage has to continually apologise for while building a smokescreen in the hope that all the top guns are not seen as they really are.
The continual appearances on telly where he tries to excuse the misogynistic racists will be appearing on the TV schedules soon.
But Henning Wehn seems to have been right about EDL, UKIP and BNP --
all clamouring to put in to practice Otto Von Bismark's plan to isolate the UK.
(or as All Murray would have it 'They really haven't thought this through, have they?' )
Quite agree with AC that the actual hack was amusing in a juvenile way (I was lucky enough to get a heads up early on) Whilst sexuality should not be used to denigrate, it is an amusing satirical concept to apply to those who express the greatest outrage about the range of differences in the human condition. Deflation through ridicule worked well (What goes around comes around). I wonder if the way back machine caught it all...
I know there are all these reports about how the EU is good for British business, but as someone who's exported quite a bit to Europe it has only made things more difficult. It means you have three different regions to trade with (UK/EU/Non-EU) instead of just two (UK and non-UK). Trade with EU requires you to fill in an EC sales list and pass this information to the UK govt (i.e. more paperwork, more things to fine you about if you screw up). Trade with other EU VAT-registered entities requires that you have to verify that they are VAT registered before zero-rating your sales to them, with the rest of the world the post-office receipt is all you need to show the VAT man to zero-rate the sale, much easier and no risk to yourself. If you are fortunate enough to sell a lot in one particular (non-UK) country you may have to VAT-register in that country, i.e. more hassle and more paperwork, but for exports to the rest of the world you simply don't need to care about this stuff. For me, it's completely pointless unless you have common currency, common VAT rates, Common VAT registration thresholds, fully integrated VAT collection mechanisms (transparent for business, so no difference in accounting selling within UK or EU). Common VAT invoicing requirements would be a plus...). I'd be interested to know if other people think the EU is somehow a positive thing for their small business. Don't get me started on distance selling regulations!
I believe that the important part of the picture here is import duty. Okay, you are not paying this directly, but within the EU, you can sell a widget for £1 + VAT anywhere in the EU, and the purchaser pays £1 + VAT. If we leave the EU, this leaves us open to duties, which we would presumably have to individually negotiate with each state. If someone in France can no longer buy your widget for £1 + VAT, but instead has to pay £1 + import duty + VAT, they're going to be buying German widgets instead.
Admittedly, we'd probably be able to negotiate trade deals with each European nation eventually, but in the meantime, do you think all the widget manufacturers will stay in business?
You'd have thought that these tits would have got the message when they got their membership list hacked; they couldn't even run non-sleezy marketing, let alone do viable security; so much for the supposed SA security experts (LOL); so I'm not surprised so many people jumped ship or turned on them. These Right Wing Socialist thickos are too incompetent to even be genuinely threatening, let-alone useful; I'm amazed they still have anyone in a paying elected position; some people must be really bored to even bother cracking these losers!
The only seemingly professional and visible enough anti-EU party currently, is the UKIP and they still don't look competent enough to do much damage where and when it matters.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
